A ridiculous number of no-namers averaged over 60 during this period, in spite of the fact that test cricket was played far less frequently than it is now, and there were far fewer international players around.

Only one with a minimum of 20 Tests, which was my criteria. Obviously the wider the criteria, the higher the number of people will be averaging that much.

Originally Posted by Evermind

So is this proof that during Hutton's and Weekes's era, batting was considerably easier?

And yes, especially during the 1930s, batting was relatively easier.

Originally Posted by KungFu_Kallis

Peter Siddle top scores in both innings....... Matthew Wade gets out twice in one ball

This is bit too 'using statistics to prove something' for my taste, stats should be used like a drunk man uses a lamp post, more for support than illumination (nicked that from one of my old stats teachers). I'm not sure on % team runs being a useful measure, it's not Ponting's fault he played in an awesome line up, similarly it aids Lara here that he played in a crap line up (how much did he contribute to this with his attitude?).

...

These greatest ever things will never be definitive no matter what stats anyone manages to produce, just food for pub discussions really.

I couldn't agree more. I read the 15,000 word article quoted in the original post and couldn't believe that someone actually earns a living publishing this complete load of crap. Why should a statistician's utterly arbitrary selection of arbitrarily weighted criteria be of the slightest interest to anyone? Hell, it looks scientific and there's a lot of words involved so it must be authoritative. Give me a break.

Yes, I know the sample size is too small, but the 20-test limit is pretty arbitrary. Considering that test cricket was played at a far less frequency than today, it's absurd to hold the 20-test sample size as minimum.

The whole point is that averages were a lot higher back then. Which means batting was easier. Which means all the greats "worshipped" back then were possibly not as great as some of the batsmen today. They also played a lot fewer matches and fatigue barely came into the picture.

Frankly I find it absurd that Ponting is ranked lower than 15 in some people's all-time batting lists. I can't think of anything other than prejudice/"old-is-gold" nonsense being responsible for that.

I couldn't agree more. I read the 15,000 word article quoted in the original post and couldn't believe that someone actually earns a living publishing this complete load of crap. Why should a statistician's utterly arbitrary selection of arbitrarily weighted criteria be of the slightest interest to anyone? Hell, it looks scientific and there's a lot of words involved so it must be authoritative. Give me a break.

Agree with every word except calling this bloke a "statistician". He just fiddles with numbers. A proper statistician would shake his head innumerable times at this.

A follower of the schools of Machiavelli, Bentham, Locke, Hobbes, Sutcliffe, Bradman, Lindwall, Miller, Hassett and Benaud
Member of ESAS, JMAS, DMAS, FRAS and RTDAS

when you're winning, you have friendsscores and dozens, real friendswhen you're winning, never lonelywhen you keep winning

Yes, I know the sample size is too small, but the 20-test limit is pretty arbitrary. Considering that test cricket was played at a far less frequency than today, it's absurd to hold the 20-test sample size as minimum.

The whole point is that averages were a lot higher back then. Which means batting was easier. Which means all the greats "worshipped" back then were possibly not as great as some of the batsmen today. They also played a lot fewer matches and fatigue barely came into the picture.

You were the one who dragged in the 1940s and included "Hobbs, Hutton and Barrington", when in fact only Hutton of those three played a significant amount of Tests in that, admittedly, batting-inflated era, which started around the late 20s and, in England, probably ended around 1951 (someone with a better idea of bowling standards will know - anyway, it's not entirely for the same reason, before the War Test wickets were especially well-prepared and the Australian Tests were timeless, a huge advantage for batsmen - after the War, a lot of bowlers had been taken out of action, while the batsmen found it easier to come back from service or, in many cases, hadn't served). Hutton had the years between 24 and 30 taken away by the war, played until he was 39, and still averaged 56 (the same as Ponting, whose latest years show that the effects of age i catching up with him).

Agree with every word except calling this bloke a "statistician". He just fiddles with numbers. A proper statistician would shake his head innumerable times at this.

excatly...i'm amazed how many 'famous' cricket statisticians are like this...no logic, no quality... just putting weights to some 'factors' which are almost meaningless...being a student of statistics, i've met innumerable very able statisticians, and not even 5% of them i've known are interested in cricket statistics. (And even the rare ones who are interested, never chose it as their profession) I wonder why? Is it because there is not much money? not much recognition? (unlike the quality control departments in big MNCs)...

Besides the lack of big buck, another reason can be a very prevalent one. It is that a good statistical analysis in this field will almost certainly not get any recognition and be thrashed by cricket purists and enthusiasts alike...

At the end of the day, these quite average level of analyses are ruling the world of cricket statistics which is not good for the field. And more importantly, for these moderate level of analyses from some 'famous' (I don't know how) cricket statisticians, the rare brilliant ones are often ignored by cricket pundits - for which I obviously don't blame the pundits...

Last edited by weldone; 09-05-2009 at 12:28 AM.

"I want to raise my hand and say one thing. Those who complain about my love for the game or commitment to the game are clueless. These are the only 2 areas where I give myself 100 out of 100."
- Sachin Tendulkar, as told in an interview published in Bengali newspaper Anandabazar Patrika after his 100th International century (translated by weldone)